https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329999 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order under Section 74 of the Finance Act for rectification of Service Tax demanded. The petitioner's application for rectification was denied as it aimed to re-argue the matter, not rectify specific mistakes. The court emphasized that Section 74 is not meant for re-opening arguments but for rectifying errors. The petitioner was advised to appeal before the CESTAT, with the exclusion of the period during the writ petition's pendency from the appeal filing time limit. No costs were imposed on the parties. en-us Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Nov 2016 16:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329999 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order under Section 74 of the Finance Act for rectification of Service Tax demanded. The petitioner's application for rectification was denied as it aimed to re-argue the matter, not rectify specific mistakes. The court emphasized that Section 74 is not meant for re-opening arguments but for rectifying errors. The petitioner was advised to appeal before the CESTAT, with the exclusion of the period during the writ petition's pendency from the appeal filing time limit. No costs were imposed on the parties. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329999